Separating families at border

[mikemac]

What would you suggest, Mike, as a end-point to asylum seeking?  That there be no end to it?

Well there won't be an end to it with the status quo.  Or with James' plan on the previous page.

The ONLY solution is to help to make their countries safe again, and to get rid of the ridiculous "Free Trade" agreement DR-CAFTA that is stifling Central American country economies and making US multinational corporations wealthy, which Americans benefit from in the end as well.

The ONLY solution to stop this is to make the living conditions in their own countries livable again so they do not want to leave.

That is why I suggested this plan.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=20193.msg445788#msg445788

And turns out there is already a start to that initiative.  See the underlined.

On November 16, 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced that they arrested a total of 267 alleged MS-13 gang members and associates in Operation Raging Bull, which was carried out in two phases. The first phase was in September 2017, and resulted in 53 arrests in El Salvador. The second phase was between October 8 and November 11, 2017, and resulted in 214 arrests in the U.S. Charges included drug trafficking, child prostitution, human smuggling, racketing, conspiracy to commit murder.

There needs to be a pile more of that happening.  But they also need to be able to scratch out a living in their own country so they won't want to leave.   

[Sempronius]

Did Melanie Trump really wore a jacket with the text "I really dont care, do you?"

[james03]

Gang violence does not qualify for asylum.

Building the wall cuts off the flow of drugs to a large extent and takes money away from MS-13.

I admit also that my plan does not help the El Salvadoran economy.  Nor does it help the economy of Togo.  It does end child separation however.  And that is the goal.

[Miriam_M]

The problem, Mike, with "helping the economies" of other countries, is that help involves complex variables.  It includes education (for some jobs), skills (for virtually all jobs), and an end to corruption (bribes, exorbitant fees, and more) within those countries.

The U.S. has been criticized often in the past for assuming the role of Global Police Force, and being global miracle-worker (including dedicating our own labor & funds to countries other than our own) is subject to legitimate criticism within our own country.  Yet fixing the internal affairs of other countries requires a level of intervention from us -- or a level of joint initiative between two countries (something we have tried often with Mexico, and have often failed) -- that is beyond our political and moral responsibility, due to the size of such multiple projects (not just one).

It's much more complicated than just ending NAFTA.  It requires cooperation and transparency between governments.

[dellery]

getting ghetto blacks to work.

lol!
That's pretty ambitious, man.

[Greg]

I would have no asylum full stop.  Either immigrate on your merits, offering the host country something, or stay and fight it out with YOUR tribe.  They are your problems, not mine.  Blame the British Empire or American imperialism, all you like, but we stopped these decades ago and you're still shitting in a hole and everything you use in your life and aspire to own is designed, manufactured and invested in elsewhere.  Mostly the same imperialist countries you accuse of "wrecking" your country.  In fact, about the only place in your hellhole country I am guaranteed to NOT to get food poisoning is McDonald's.

I love McDonald's.  The world over, a clean place to take a relatively hygienic dump and wash your hands afterwards.  Urination Utopias.  The Paradise of Poop, The Shangri-La of .....  well you catch my drift.

[ "You" above is used in the plural context.  I am accusing neither Heinrich, nor any other reader of this illustrious forum, of shitting in a hole.]

A civil war gave us the modern United States, modern Britiain,  modern France, Germany had lots of blood letting, Spain began to get its act together.

Had Britain or Canada taken refugees enmasse there would be no Gettysburg address and no shock at the horrors of war for the country to come together.  Those dead and maimed people helped make modern America and brand the United into the United States.  South Africa avoided a civil war, but, perhaps, it would have been better if they had had one in the Mandela years.  Now it is being run by the same corrupt idiots you would have WANTED to die as child soldiers because the price of their power was too cheap.

Either citizenship means something and the tribe is worth dying for, or it doesn't in which case let's have open borders.  In 100 years we will homogenise into a sort of mongol world and my descendants will at least understand the moronic wallah at the HSBCiti call centre.  It's heading this way anyway and I am neither for it or against it.  I would simply rather import the best people and not the scum since my sons and daughters have to share public spaces with them.

But this asylum thing doesn't really solve anything.  It's just a way for bleeding hearts to bleed without any personal cost.

[Kaesekopf]

I love McDonald's.  The world over, a clean place to take a relatively hygienic dump and wash your hands afterwards.  Urination Utopias.  The Paradise of Poop, The Shangri-La of .....  well you catch my drift.

This is why my father always had us stop at McDonalds on road trips.  You knew that it was going to be a clean and orderly place. 

[Kaesekopf]

Regarding crime within Central America, it is obviously rampant.  Second, economic conditions are horrendous.  Third, undoubtedly the governments, like so many others in Latin America as a whole, are corrupt.  The term "cesspool"  (or something more vulgar) comes to mind.

However, Mike and others, this gets back to my much earlier statement about such crises, since there are similar crimes against children in Southeast Asia (trafficking), Africa (varieties of crimes), the rest of Latin America outside of the Central American countries, and probably China, since there's almost no concept of human rights there. 

Are we the refuge for the whole world?  Do we take the position, which cannot be justified morally, that we will house and protect those children who are fortunate enough or whose parents are clever enough to send them to our borders?  Because the latter is a "policy" based on expediency (proximity) and accident.  Now, as individuals, we are always bound in charity to be as charitable and compassionate as a situation in time accidentally presents itself to us, but that is not the way government policy is crafted, because that universal policy is not sustainable on a global basis, and if it's not global but preferential by geography, then it's an unjust policy.

What would you suggest, Mike, as a end-point to asylum seeking?  That there be no end to it?

Import Third World people, get Third World problems.

The land isn't the issue.  It's the people (or the culture). 

[mikemac]

The problem, Mike, with "helping the economies" of other countries, is that help involves complex variables.  It includes education (for some jobs), skills (for virtually all jobs), and an end to corruption (bribes, exorbitant fees, and more) within those countries.

The U.S. has been criticized often in the past for assuming the role of Global Police Force, and being global miracle-worker (including dedicating our own labor & funds to countries other than our own) is subject to legitimate criticism within our own country.  Yet fixing the internal affairs of other countries requires a level of intervention from us -- or a level of joint initiative between two countries (something we have tried often with Mexico, and have often failed) -- that is beyond our political and moral responsibility, due to the size of such multiple projects (not just one).

It's much more complicated than just ending NAFTA.  It requires cooperation and transparency between governments.

It turns out it's the US where the corruption originates.  Have you read this yet?  This so called DR-CAFTA "Free Trade" agreement needs to end.

What "Free Trade" Has Done to Central America
Warnings about the human and environmental costs of "free trade" went unheeded. Now the most vulnerable Central Americans are paying the price.
https://fpif.org/free-trade-done-central-america/

A prime example is the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA. Brokered by the George W. Bush administration and a handful of hemispheric allies, the pact has had a devastating effect on poverty, dislocation, and environmental contamination in the region.

And perhaps even worse, it's diminished the ability of Central American countries to protect their citizens from corporate abuse.
...

Overall economic indicators in the region have been poor, with some governments unable to provide basic services to the population. Farmers have been displaced when they can't compete with grain imported from the United States. Amid significant levels of unemployment, labor abuses continue. Workers in export assembly plants often suffer poor working conditions and low wages. And natural resource extraction has proceeded with few protections for the environment.

Contrary to the promises of U.S. officials—who claimed the agreement would improve Central American economies and thereby reduce undocumented immigration—large numbers of Central Americans have migrated to the United States, as dramatized most recently by the influx of children from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras crossing the U.S.-Mexican border last summer. Although most are urgently fleeing violence in their countries, there are important economic roots to the migration—many of which are related to DR-CAFTA.

One of the most pernicious features of the agreement is a provision called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism. This allows private corporations to sue governments over alleged violations of a long list of so-called "investor protections."

The most controversial cases have involved public interest laws and regulations that corporations claim reduce the value of their investments. That means corporations can sue those countries for profits they say they would have made had those regulations not been put into effect.

Such lawsuits can be financially devastating to poor countries that already struggle to provide basic services to their people, much less engage in costly court battles with multinational firms. They can also prevent governments from making democratically accountable decisions in the first place, pushing them to prioritize the interests of transnational corporations over the needs of their citizens.
...

The US has and still is benefiting from the destruction of these Central American countries.  What I have already told James still applies here ...



Or better yet ...

[Kaesekopf]

CAFTA-DR has been around since 2005.

Those shitholes have been shitholes long before '05.

[Miriam_M]

Mike, if the U.S. took responsibility for "fixing" the economic problems which you claim were entirely created by the First World, and specifically the U.S., systemic problems would remain.  It's called illiteracy.  It's called Third World.  It's called (essentially) pre-industrialization, never mind pre-technology (that too).  These people were not even near to being a contemporary economy -- say, a late 20th century economy, long before (you claim) that free trade agreements ruined their countries.  That's a myth perpetrated by the Left.

Yes, NAFTA and CAFTA and other arrangements chased Latin Americans from their farming lands, which was wrong, and which precipitated their move out of their country and to the North.  But what that emigration really revealed was that they were not prepared to do anything but farm and engage in other low-skilled work.  When they come to the States they can do only low-skilled work.  And trade agreements didn't cause that.  Long before trade agreements with the North, these countries were backward to the core.  That's what Kaesekopf just said as well.

They may not have had a thriving economy after trade agreements, but neither did they before those.  And for the latter, we cannot be held accountable because it amounts to far more than fixing an economy.

[Greg]

The central American countries benefit FAR more from the USA.

Ever heard of smallpox, yellow fever, air conditioning, mobile phones, containerised shipping, oxytocin and misoprostol?

The day central America gives up the gifts from the western democracies is the same day I will take their "exploitation" argument seriously.

They have contributed almost nothing to the world apart from some natural resources which they were too lazy or stupid to dig up or cut down or pump out until we turned up and had to bribe their politicians to let us organise the removal of.  It's not even like they had to lead the way.  Simply copy the text books of the civilised world's into their own Creole and imitate our universities.  The Orientals did this.  And good on them.  Now they have great cities built by their own hands.  I salute them.

Kuala Lumpur is marvellous.  Just amazing.

Overall the colonised countries are MUCH better off than if we had completely left them alone, "prime directive" style.

So some Bengalese died in a famine during world war 2 because the British mismanged the distribution or fed soldiers first.  So what?  Looking at modern Bengal this is not exact a giant loss to the world is it?  Even the Burmese don't want these people loitering around.

If a load of white British chavs starved to death because they cut welfare payments to zero, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it either.  The vision of robots doing all the work while a tattoooed class of moronic British monkeys spend all day drinking and cursing at each other seems like a terrible one to me.  Better that they are dead from starvation and those with the wit and the will to find something more productive to do with their lives like work and raise functional children, are left some "breathing room".

There are some people you simply cannot lift from the gutter.  So.... down the drain they must go with the next rains.

As long as you don't actually make it rain, and just let circumstances prevail, then I see no moral problem.

In the same way we don't have to do everything possible to keep a patient alive, even if they want to be kept alive.  Just what is easy and reasonable, like food, water and simple medical interventions.

[drummerboy]

I love McDonald's.  The world over, a clean place to take a relatively hygienic dump and wash your hands afterwards.  Urination Utopias.  The Paradise of Poop, The Shangri-La of .....  well you catch my drift.

This is why my father always had us stop at McDonalds on road trips.  You knew that it was going to be a clean and orderly place.

And you don't have to worry about stumbling into a "Mom's Place" restaurant where you get dirty looks because you're not local 

[Carleendiane]

I love McDonald's.  The world over, a clean place to take a relatively hygienic dump and wash your hands afterwards.  Urination Utopias.  The Paradise of Poop, The Shangri-La of .....  well you catch my drift.

This is why my father always had us stop at McDonalds on road trips.  You knew that it was going to be a clean and orderly place.

I laughed at that^^^^^^^^. Dad may have used MD's for a pit stop, but it was back in the car for sandwiches mom made. I can't remember once, on our trips to St. Louis, Mo. ever eating at a restraunt. But I do remember pit stops along the road, if there were no MD's. At that time they were few and far between. I must say, it's a rare thing to find their bathroom facilities in less than clean condition. So, thumbs up for their bathrooms anyway!!!!

[mikemac]

Mike, if the U.S. took responsibility for "fixing" the economic problems which you claim were entirely created by the First World, and specifically the U.S., systemic problems would remain.  It's called illiteracy.  It's called Third World.  It's called (essentially) pre-industrialization, never mind pre-technology (that too).  These people were not even near to being a contemporary economy -- say, a late 20th century economy, long before (you claim) that free trade agreements ruined their countries.  That's a myth perpetrated by the Left.

Yes, NAFTA and CAFTA and other arrangements chased Latin Americans from their farming lands, which was wrong, and which precipitated their move out of their country and to the North.  But what that emigration really revealed was that they were not prepared to do anything but farm and engage in other low-skilled work.  When they come to the States they can do only low-skilled work.  And trade agreements didn't cause that.  Long before trade agreements with the North, these countries were backward to the core.  That's what Kaesekopf just said as well.

They may not have had a thriving economy after trade agreements, but neither did they before those.  And for the latter, we cannot be held accountable because it amounts to far more than fixing an economy.

Well at least you acknowledge that.

The libertarian "Catholicism" that has permeated this forum is rather nauseating.  It is not Traditional Catholicism.  It is not even Catholic.

No foreign country has a right to rape another country of it's natural resources without any benefit to that country.  Bogus "Free Trade" agreement or not.